Chapter 15

WOOD METHANOL AS A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES

Daniel J. Vogt, Kristiina A. Vogt, John C. Gordon, Michael L. Miller, Calvin Mukumoto, Ravi

Upadhye and Michael H. Miller

LINKING ENERGY, CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT There are several global issues that, at first glance, seem unrelated. These issues include:

higher incidences of catastrophic forest fires, global climate change, the need for increased

energy sources, the global peaking of oil and gas supplies, the need to develop substitutes for

fossil fuel energies, developing sustainable rural economies, decreasing poverty, and the loss of

productive lands (Azar and Rodhe 1997; Demirbas 2001; IPCC 2003; Jagadish 2003; Sayer

and Campbell 2003; de Oliveira et al. 2005; FAO 2006; California Energy Commission 2005;

Stokstad 2005; Vogt et al. 2005; Alanne and Saari 2006; Farrell et al. 2006; Jefferson 2006;

Richards et al. 2006; Ragauskas et al. 2006; Schindler et al. 2006; Varun and Singal 2007). In

the past, each of these issues was treated as a separate problem in which solutions were derived

by focusing on only one individual problem at a time. Today these global issues are being

formally linked because the combustion of fossil fuels to produce energy, the main ingredient

fueling industrialization, is now causally linked to climate change and the emission of

greenhouse gases (GHGs). Fossil fuel combustion is a major contributor to CO2 emissions and

these levels are increasing as more countries become industrialized. It is therefore logical to

develop strategies that shift our reliance from fossil fuels to alternative energy resources that

are carbon neutral and can help to reduce our total emissions of CO2 (Gustavsson and

Svenningsson 1996; Vogt et al. 2005; Schindler et al. 2006). Mitigating climate change is

2

driving the development of technologies to convert renewable resources into biofuels that can

be substituted for fossil fuels.

Even though renewable resources are used to produce biofuels, some of these

biofuels may not be ‘climate friendly’ or ‘carbon neutral’ when fossil fuels are consumed in

their production. For example, if fossil fuels are used to increase the growth rates of crops or

are used to transport them to the markets, these biofuels mitigate less CO2 emissions and are

not carbon neutral. This fact is clearly demonstrated by Schindler et al. (2006) where they

compare the costs of various fuels using a “well to wheel” approach that is based on the vehicle

km traveled and the GHG emissions of different fuels. What distinguishes these fuels from

one another is their CO2 equivalent emissions. In that report, methanol from residual wood had

the lowest net CO2 equivalent emissions (5 g kWh-1) compared to most food crops used to

produce biofuels (e.g., ethanol from wheat had CO2 equivalent emissions of 110 g kWh-1,

while ethanol from sugar beets emitted 80 g kWh-1). In that study, gasoline/diesel was listed as

having CO2 equivalent emissions of 160 g kWh-1. Therefore, the sustainability of biofuel

production can be effectively evaluated by comparing its CO2 equivalent emissions. In fact,

the controversy regarding using food crops to produce ethanol is driven in part by concerns that

conventional ethanol has a large carbon footprint and uses as much energy as it generates

(Nilsson and Schopfhauser 1995; Berndes et al. 2001; Shapouri et al. 2002; Shapouri et al.

2003; de Oliveira et al. 2005; Parrish and Fike 2005; Pimentel et al. 2005; Pimentel and Patzek

2005; Vogt et al. 2005; Hill et al. 2006; Lewandowski and Schmidt 2006; Sticklen 2006; Wu et

al. 2006).

3

The energy crisis is also raising concerns about the environmental and social

impacts of our dependence on energy derived from fossil fuels. So even if new energy supplies

are developed, they will have to be accepted by the stakeholder groups and satisfy their criteria

for both sustainable management and environmental friendliness (Gordon 1994). The social,

economic, or environmental impacts of producing the different biofuels will ultimately

determine which biofuel will become a fossil fuel substitute. Biofuels that are produced from

essential food crops, or when forests are cut to grow biofuel crops, are less acceptable

alternatives to society. Recently, corn grown in Mexico was being sold to the U.S. instead of

being consumed in Mexico because of the higher prices being paid by the U.S. corn ethanol-

producing industries. However, corn is a staple component of the diets of people in Mexico.

This of course has resulted in an immediate increase in the price of corn in Mexico and also a

marked increase in food prices in general. Because of the resulting social strife related to

rising food costs in Mexico, the Mexican government had to intervene by increasing the corn

supply available for food products (Grillo 2007).

In another example demonstrating the need for biofuels to be environmentally

friendly, the European Union recently decided that it will not import palm oil from Malaysia

and Indonesia for biodiesel production because of deforestation concerns (Rosenthal 2007).

This loss of forests is detrimental to the survival of the local people that are dependent on those

forests for their primary source of energy (i.e., fuelwood). This forest loss is also occurring at

a time when fuelwood supplies are inadequate to meet the energy needs in many developing

countries (FAO 1998). Even in the U.S., a recent survey showed that people supported the use

4

of biofuels, but half of the survey respondents questioned the advisability of using food crops

to produce ethanol and would not use biofuels if it caused food prices to rise (Hopkins 2007).

The future acceptance of biofuel production from biomass hinges on whether it can

provide significant environmental (e.g., mitigate climate change, decrease deforestation rates,

conserve species) and societal (e.g., decrease poverty, develop sustainable rural livelihoods)

benefits. Since systematic assessments of the environmental benefits of using biomass to

produce biofuels are sparse, especially from forests (though see chapter 8), the goal of this

chapter is to assess the amounts of methanol production possible from agriculture and forest

materials/products. In addition, it will assess the associated potential avoidance of carbon

emissions when these biofuels are substituted for gasoline and for fossil fuels used to produce

electricity in 11 western states in the U.S. Information provided by this assessment can help

individual states to determine whether they should develop programs to produce biofuels and,

if so, what biomass materials should be used to produce them.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION, CARBON EMISSIONS AND BIOMASS

AVAILABILITIES IN 11 WESTERN U.S. STATES

State profiles

Prior to determining whether biomass energy systems should be adopted to reduce carbon

emissions, it is important to understand the current energy profile and annual carbon emissions

for each state. This information can then be used to determine whether sufficient biomass

exists for conversion to biofuels and whether it is a viable alternative to replace the fossil fuels

5

currently used in each state. If the substitution only replaces a small fraction of the energy

consumed or it mitigates only a small fraction of the carbon emitted in a state, a state-level

policy for using biomass to produce biofuels is probably not worth implementing. For

example, converting all of the corn and soybean crops annually grown in the U.S. to produce

biofuels is probably not a realistic solution. Hill et al. (2006), e.g., reported that only 12 per

cent of U.S. gasoline demand and 6 per cent of its diesel demand could be substituted by the

biofuels derived from all the corn and soybean crops.

The 11 western U.S. states examined in this chapter have highly variable energy

profiles. When comparing these states, each emits different levels of CO2 annually. Several

factors explain this variability: the type of energy source used to produce electricity, the

population density, and the amount of gasoline consumption (Tables 15.1 - 15.2). Since 82 per

cent of the variance in carbon emissions can be explained by the net amount of electricity

generated in these states, it appears that targeting the replacement of energy supplies used to

generate electricity would be ideal when the goal is to optimize the reduction in CO2

emissions. However, this scenario is more complicated than what the first analysis would

suggest and, accordingly, the solution is more complicated. For example, 73–58 per cent of the

state-level carbon emissions in Arizona, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming

are from the combustion of coal or natural gas to produce electricity. Despite the high level of

carbon emitted during coal combustion, the lower population densities in most of these states

means that the total state-level emissions are at the lower end when compared to more

populated western states (Table 15.1 and 15.2). In these lower populated states, there is less

demand for electricity and motor vehicle fuels so their total state-level carbon footprint is

6

lower. In contrast, Arizona also generates most of its electricity using coal but has a

significantly higher population density compared to the other coal powered states. Arizona’s

high population density means that it has a higher demand for electricity and it consumes more

motor vehicle fuels. The situation in Colorado is similar to Arizona in that it also has a high

population density and uses coal to generate 71.7 per cent of its electricity. However,

Colorado differs from Arizona in that most of its state-level carbon emissions are as a result of

motor gasoline consumption and not from electricity generation (37 per cent of total state

emissions).

TABLES 15.1 & 15.2 NEAR HERE

Three of the western states (i.e., Idaho, Oregon and Washington) primarily produce

power using hydroelectric dams and therefore have the lowest emissions of carbon resulting

from their electricity generation (22–9 per cent; see Tables 15.1 and 15.2). Yet the total carbon

emissions were not consistently low in all three states and again varied based on the state’s

population density. Unlike the other two states, Washington has one of the higher population

densities in the West, high levels of total state carbon emissions, as well as high rates of motor

vehicle fuel consumption and net electricity generation. Washington is more similar to

Arizona, with both states having comparable population densities and energy consumption

rates (Table 15.2).

Recently the State of Washington decided not to accept the avoided CO2 emissions

from hydroelectric power generation because of the adverse environmental impacts created by

7

the placement of dams. This means that Washington will have to find alternative strategies to

meet its mandated reduction in carbon emissions. In contrast to Washington and the other

western states, Idaho and Oregon have lower population densities and comparatively lower

CO2 emission rates. However, all three of these western states, characterized by generating

electricity mainly from hydroelectric dams, also have large and vibrant agricultural and

forestry industries. Thus these states have the potential to reduce a significant proportion of

their own CO2 emissions by converting biomass to biofuels. Idaho and Oregon also have a

large capacity to market biofuels to other states.

The highest level of total state CO2 emissions occurs in California, the most

populated U.S. state. Even though only 15 per cent of California’s state-level CO2 emissions

occurs during electricity generation (half of California’s electricity production is from natural

gas, the lowest carbon emitting fossil fuel), the total state-level CO2 emissions are four times

higher than those in Arizona and Washington (Tables 15.1 and 15.2). When comparing the

motor vehicle fuel consumption rates found in California to those reported in Arizona and

Washington, California consumes five times more automotive fuels and generates twice the

amount of electricity. For the State of California to significantly reduce its CO2 emissions, it

should focus on substituting motor vehicle fuels derived from non-renewable fossil fuels with

biofuels that are renewable and emit less CO2.

In summary, state energy profiles for the 11 western states suggest that those states

using coal as their primary energy source to generate electricity should target the adoption of

alternative energy systems to lower their CO2 emissions. These data show that the states that

8

used coal to generate electricity emitted more than half of their CO2 emissions during the

production of electricity. These data also show that those states with higher population

densities (e.g., Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington) also consume more motor vehicle

fuels and should therefore explore the substitution of fuels produced from nonrenewable fossil

fuels with those produced from renewable materials. Even in states where electricity

production is largely based on hydroelectric power (e.g., Idaho, Oregon and Washington),

biofuels have a role to lower CO2 emissions since the environmental impacts of generating

electricity with hydropower makes it a less acceptable solution for some citizens.

Biomass availabilities for biofuel production

An analysis of the power generation and consumption profiles and the amount of CO2 emitted

by each of the western states suggest that all of them should supplement or substitute their

energy production with biofuels. The next question that should be asked is whether sufficient

supplies of biomass exist in each state to make the building of biofuel production facilities

worth pursuing. In addition, it is important to characterize the different types of biomass that

are available: (1) waste biomasses from agriculture, forests and municipal wastes, i.e.,

‘wastes’; (2) sustainably collected biomass from unmanaged forests, i.e., ‘sustainable forest

biomass’, which was assumed to be 2 per cent of the total live aboveground biomass; and (3)

the collection of the small diameter (5-23 cm) forest materials considered to increase the fire

risk of forests, i.e., ‘high fire risk biomass’. Unlike all the other biomass materials that can be

annually and sustainably collected, the high fire risk biomass cannot be collected annually but

will continue to be produced through time. In this assessment, the three types of biomass

materials were included in the data set for each of the 11 western states.

9

Total annual biomass availability for the 11 western states examined was high in all

states except Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming (Figure 15.1). The available

biomass also varies considerably by biomass type (Table 15A.1). For example, ‘wastes’

supplies were high in the five states where the agriculture and forestry industries are strong

(Figure 15.1). The remaining six states would need to use ‘sustainable forest biomass’ or the

‘high fire risk biomass’ to produce biofuels (Figure 15.1; Table 15A.1).

FIGURE 15.1 & TABLE 15A.1 NEAR HERE

If only considering the collection of ‘wastes’ (e.g., from municipal, agriculture or

forests) within each state, forest ‘wastes’ would provide the greatest amount of biomass

materials in those states where viable forestry industries exist (e.g., California, Idaho, Montana,

Oregon and Washington) (Figure 15.1). In most cases, even when viable agricultural

industries were present in a state, the amount of agricultural ‘wastes’ was not as high as that

created by forestry operations. This analysis only calculated the collection of 25 per cent of the

agricultural ‘wastes’ since soil productivity is better maintained if some biomass wastes are left

in the field. In California, the amount of available ‘wastes’ being transported to landfills is so

high that this could become an excellent source of material for energy production. The forest

‘wastes’ in California are also a good source of biomass materials (Figure 15.1). States lacking

strong forestry industries (e.g., Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming)

need to use all of their ‘waste’ supplies (e.g., from agriculture, forests and municipal residues)

10

for energy production since no one type of waste is available in sufficient quantities by itself to

produce biofuels economically.

Alternatively, if one compares the ‘sustainable forest biomass’ supplies available

from collecting a sustainable amount of forest biomass from all of the forests in the 11 western

states, even states without a viable forestry industry could annually collect enough biomass

materials to convert to biofuels (Figure 15.1; Table 15A.1). Furthermore, those states with

strong forestry industries and where a large amount of wastes are already generated (e.g.,

Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington) could increase their supply of biomass resources by

two to six times if ‘sustainable forest biomass’ materials was included with their ‘wastes’ mix.

If the small diameter aboveground materials with high fire risk were collected from

forests in these 11 western states, an overabundance of readily available woody biomass exists

in most of the western states to produce biofuels economically; the only exception to this

pattern occurs in Nevada (Table 15A.1). This means that even those states without a viable

forestry industry have sufficient supplies of ‘high fire risk biomass’ materials that could be

converted to biofuels. Most of these western states have the potential to acquire significant

environmental benefits from managing forests for biofuel production. By thinning forests to

reduce their fire risk (USDA Forest Service 2003), the western states can contribute towards

reducing carbon emissions twice - first by reducing carbon emissions that occur during

catastrophic fires and second when biofuels are substituted for fossil fuels.

11

BIO-METHANOL LINK TO GASOLINE CONSUMPTION AND ELECTRICITY

GENERATION IN 11 WESTERN U.S. STATES

The production of methanol, instead of ethanol, from biomass wastes was examined here.

There are several reasons that make methanol production from biomass worth pursuing and

why it is the focus of this assessment. First, because of existing technologies wood biomass

can be more efficiently and completely converted to methanol than to ethanol. This is

primarily because methanol is a one-carbon alcohol and ethanol is a two-carbon alcohol

(Upadhye 2006). Secondly, alcohol produced from wood biomass generates almost twice the

amount of liquid fuels than when converting the same amount of agricultural crop biomass

(DOE 1990; NREL 1995; Oasmaa et al. 2003; Upadhye 2006; Nakagawa et al. 2007). Mobile

conversion technology is also used in these assessments (Vogt et al. 2005) since it becomes a

more viable option to produce biofuels at each site where the biomass is actually located rather

than transporting the biomass to a central location much farther away. Transporting woody

biomass can be cost prohibitive when distances greater than 100 km are needed to supply

centralized facilities.

Since biomass availability is sufficiently high in most of the western states, it is

worth determining the quantity of biofuel production that is possible from the three categories

of biomasses mentioned earlier. Since the technology for converting biomass to biofuels (e.g.

methanol) is approaching efficiencies of about 50 per cent today (Vogt et al. 2005), producing

biofuels from biomass will provide more energy than historically possible. This means that the

high biomass supplies available in the western states can be converted to biofuels at a level

12

where it can potentially substitute or supplement a significant portion of the energy consumed

in each of the western states analyzed.

The amount of bio-methanol produced from the different biomass types was

calculated for each of the 11 states. For this discussion, we quantified the amount of methanol

that could be produced from either 1 Mg of dry biomass or wastes collected from municipal

landfills, agricultural fields, or forests with a small scale, mobile conversion system using

methodology described in Vogt et al. (2007). For these calculations, a 50 per cent conversion

efficiency (630 L of methanol produced per 1 dry Mg of biomass) was used to convert biomass

to bio-methanol (Vogt et al. 2007). These data were then used to calculate the annual

sustainable amount of methanol that could be produced from these ‘wastes’, from ‘sustainable

forest biomass’, and from the ‘high fire risk biomass’ for the 11 western states. How much of

each state’s gasoline consumption could be substituted annually by bio-methanol produced

from these three types of biomass/wastes was calculated, as well as the energy-equivalent

amount of natural gas-methanol that could be substituted by bio-methanol to produce

electricity with fuel cells.

Vehicle fuel

Since motor vehicle fuel is almost entirely petroleum based in all the states studied, and it is a

relatively high-value fossil energy product, substituting or supplementing gasoline with an

alcohol produced from biomass is a logical comparison to make. Methanol is already used in

fleet vehicles as M85 fuel (85 per cent methanol with 15 per cent gasoline) but today most of

13

the methanol supplies are derived from natural gas (Reed and Lerner 1973; Ohlström et al.

2001; Ekbom et al. 2003).

Based on the biomass values provided in Table 15A.1, the proportion of each state’s

gasoline consumption that can be substituted by equal volumes of bio-methanol produced from

the three types of biomass is summarized in Table 15A.2. Out of the 11 states, those with the

poorest developed agricultural or industrial forest bases had the least amount of ‘wastes’

available from biomass to produce biofuels as fossil fuel substitutes. In states with poorly

developed agricultural or forestry industries, if all ‘wastes’ were converted to biofuels only 5.2

per cent of the gasoline could be substituted by biofuels in Arizona, 9.3 per cent in Colorado,

4.3 per cent in Nevada, 8.3 per cent in New Mexico and 6.1 per cent in Utah. These numbers

suggest that biomass wastes are not ideal material to convert to biofuels in states with poorly

developed agricultural or forest industries because their quantities are too low. An exception is

Wyoming, which does not have a large-scale agricultural or forestry industry, where ‘wastes’

would be able to substitute for 20.2 per cent of the state’s gasoline use because its lower

population density means that gasoline consumption rates are also low.

As would be expected, states with strong agricultural and forestry industries can use

‘wastes’ to substitute for a significant proportion or all of their annual gasoline consumption

(Figure 15.2; Table 15A.2). For example, California could convert its agricultural, forestry and

municipal ‘wastes’ to biofuels and substitute for about 72.4 per cent of its annual gasoline

consumption. Similarly, Washington could use bio-methanol to substitute for 79.8 per cent of

its annual gasoline consumption, Montana 104.1 per cent, Oregon 153.9 per cent, and Idaho

14

twice the annual gasoline consumed (197.2 per cent of total gasoline used). In these states

where the available supplies of ‘wastes’ that can be used to produce methanol are high, it is a

practical solution to substitute bio-methanol for gasoline. Yet despite the high potential shown

for methanol to substitute for the gasoline consumed in the western U.S., to-date its production

from biomass has not been included in the mix of biofuels being produced.

TABLE 15A.2 & FIGURE 15.2 NEAR HERE

Those states with poorly developed agricultural and forestry industries that lack

sufficient supplies of ‘wastes’ (Table 15A.2) may have a sufficient supply of the other two

biomass types that can be converted to biofuels. The quantity of bio-methanol produced from

‘sustainable forest biomass’ is capable of substituting for 15.6 per cent of the gasoline

consumed in Arizona, 64.6 per cent of the gasoline consumed in Colorado, 49.3 per cent in

New Mexico, and 43.4 per cent of the gasoline consumed in Utah. Furthermore, states that

appear to be poor candidates for converting biomass to biofuels are clearly strong candidates

for biofuels production when the ‘high fire risk biomass’ materials are converted. The only

state where biomass conversion to biofuels does not appear to be worth pursuing because of

low biomass availability is Nevada; even the availability of ‘high fire risk biomass’ is low in

this state.

The potential benefits of bio-methanol production on the local economy can be

demonstrated using Missoula, Montana as a case study. Missoula County has a population of

around 102,000 people. The per capita consumption of gasoline in Montana is about 7.57 liters

15

per person per day. Therefore, the population of Missoula County would consume

approximately 757,000 liters of gasoline each day. If Missoula County replaced half of its

gasoline with M85 fuel, this would eliminate the need to purchase 295,262 liters per day of

gasoline from outside Missoula's economic zone. Production of the necessary M85 fuel for

this scenario would require 495,889 liters of methanol. A plant located near the city could,

using ‘sustainable forest biomass’ from within the local area, process 780 dry Mg of wood per

day to produce this methanol. Assuming a wholesale value of $2.10 [February 2008 price] per

3.79 liters of methanol, this would yield revenues of $274,767 per day, or $100 million per

year. This $100 million will remain in the Missoula economic zone rather than being

disbursed into the global petroleum supply system. Such an operation would need to employ

100 or more people, from the forest to the fuel pump, requiring loggers, truck drivers,

technicians, administrators, clerks, etc.

Electric power production

Each of the western state’s electric power is already produced to a small extent from forest by-

products, i.e., co-generation. Most of the wood biomass used to produce electricity in co-

generation facilities has already been transported to the facility, such as a pulp mill, so the

transportation costs are not prohibitive. However, a barrier to the broader use of forest biomass

for power production in centralized facilities is its high bulk density and relatively low energy

density, which makes it expensive to transport. This, along with the amount of wood required

by the typical steam generation power plant, creates a challenge to produce energy at a

competitive cost. These constraints can be overcome if mobile biomass conversion systems

that convert woody biomass at the site are adopted. Producing the biofuels at the site where

16

the biomass already exists would only require the transportation of a high energy-density

material to the markets (Vogt et al. 2005). Methanol is much more energy dense than wood

and can be readily transported to the site where it is needed. Fuel cell technology has also

matured to the extent that they can be used to produce electricity at not only higher efficiencies

but in more environmentally friendly ways than in the past if methanol is used as the preferred

fuel source (Vogt et al. 2005, Idatech 2003). The Idatech fuel cells use methanol at the rate of

960 ml kWh-1 or 3.94 kWh gallon-1. Another option is to generate electricity on site in small

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants to satisfy local need, and put the excess

energy on the electricity grid.

Similar to the patterns reported when substituting bio-methanol for gasoline, using

‘wastes’ to produce electricity generated by fuel cells is best pursued in those states where the

agriculture and forestry industries are strong and are a vital part of the state economies (Figure

15.3; Table 15A.3). In these states, potentially 10.5–23.9 per cent of the total electricity

generation could be met by fuel cells using bio-methanol derived from ‘wastes’. These values

represent the potential that exists for using bio-methanol and fuel cells to produce electricity,

even though today in these states fuel cells are not a major source of electricity (Vogt et al.

2008).

FIGURE 15.3 & TABLE 15A.3 NEAR HERE

Fortunately, even states with negligible quantities of ‘wastes’ do have sufficient

quantities of ‘sustainable forest biomass’ that could be converted to bio-methanol and used in

17

fuel cells to make electricity (Figure 15.3; Table 15A.3). For example, Colorado could

potentially generate 10.6 per cent of its electricity annually using fuel cells driven by bio-

methanol, while New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming could generate 8.9 per cent, 7.4 per cent and

16.5 per cent of their annual electricity requirements, respectively.

The potential for Idaho, Montana, and Oregon to generate electricity using biofuels

and fuel cells increases dramatically when bio-methanol is also produced from ‘sustainable

forest biomass’ materials (Table 15A.3). For example, bio-methanol derived only from

‘wastes’ allows, at most, a 20 per cent substitution of these states’ electricity needs. In

contrast, 41.4-64.2 per cent of the electricity demands in these three states could be satisfied

when methanol derived from ‘sustainable forest biomass’ is fed into fuel cells. Similarly,

Washington and Wyoming could potentially generate about 16 per cent of their annual

electrical needs when converting ‘sustainable forest biomass’ materials into bio-methanol to

use in fuel cells for electricity generation.

In Arizona and Nevada, however, if the goal was to produce electricity only, the

supplies of ‘wastes’ or even ‘sustainable forest biomass’ are too low to make bio-methanol

production economical for either state. However, Arizona does have a large quantity of ‘high

fire risk biomass’ in forests that should be removed to prevent catastrophic forest fires. If this

material were available for conversion to bio-methanol, Arizona could potentially meet 33.6

per cent of its annual electricity needs from these materials alone. In addition, its conversion to

bio-methanol would eliminate the potential CO2 emissions from related forest fires. Nevada

lacks a sufficient supply of all types of biomass, even ‘high fire risk biomass’, so it appears that

18

mandating biofuel production in the State may be inappropriate (other alternative energy

sources, such as solar and geothermal energy, are more abundant in Nevada).

Three of the 11 western states could satisfy their entire annual electricity demand

just from a one time conversion of their ‘high fire risk biomass’ to bio-methanol and using it in

fuel cells to generate electricity and still have a surplus to sell to other states (Table 15A.3).

For example, if Idaho was to convert its ‘high fire risk biomass’ materials to biofuels, it could

replace 217 per cent of the electricity it generates in a year; Montana could replace 338.6 per

cent; and Oregon could replace 115.6 per cent of its electricity generated. Again, these

numbers are illustrative of the potential that is possible if biomass is converted to methanol for

use in powering fuel cells. Today, fuel cells supply only a very small fraction of the electricity

consumed globally, but they have the potential to substitute for the electric generation required

when older technology needs to be replaced. This potential is especially relevant for rural

communities where there are no transmission lines because it is be too expensive to install

(e.g., Indonesia, Namibia, etc.) or where the power provided is not reliable. Using these

biomass materials would allow several states, with low supplies of ‘wastes’ and where the

agricultural and forestry industries are not as prevalent, to generate a large portion of their

electricity from ‘high fire risk biomass’ from their forests (e.g., Arizona 33.6 per cent,

Colorado 58.9 per cent, New Mexico 92.0 per cent, and Wyoming 31.3 per cent of the amount

annually produced).

19

POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS FROM USING BIO-

METHANOL TO PRODUCE ENERGY IN 11 WESTERN STATES IN THE U.S.

When biomass is converted into biofuels, the amount of carbon emissions avoided is

considerable because of the high efficiency of converting biomass to methanol and because

bio-methanol is an environmentally friendly substitute for fossil fuels used to produce energy.

For example, 420 kg of carbon emissions are avoided when replacing or supplementing

gasoline with an energy equivalent amount of bio-methanol produced from 1 dry Mg of

biomass (Vogt et al. 2008). Substituting bio-methanol produced from 1 Mg dry biomass for

natural gas-derived methanol and generating electricity could potentially avoid emissions

equivalent to 462 kg carbon.

Although the electricity portion that could be generated from bio-methanol is less

than the gasoline portion that could be replaced by an energy equivalent of bio-methanol, the

total carbon emissions that could be avoided are greater when using bio-methanol to generate

electricity than when using bio-methanol to replace gasoline (Figure 15.4). Therefore, if the

goal is to optimize the reductions in CO2 emissions, the best strategy is to use biomass to

generate electricity because that provides the highest possible avoidance of emissions.

FIGURE 15.4 NEAR HERE

When comparing the three types of biomass available for conversion to bio-

methanol in the 11 western states, ‘wastes’ would be available in sufficient amounts for energy

conversions on an annual sustainable basis only in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and

20

Montana. These are the states where large-scale agricultural and forestry industries are

located. Substituting fossil fuels with liquid fuels produced from ‘wastes’ could result in

potentially significant reductions in CO2 emissions in these states. California has the greatest

potential to significantly cut its emissions by converting its ‘wastes’ into an energy product.

The high population densities in California and Washington suggest that biofuels should be

generated from ‘wastes’ to replace or supplement motor vehicle fuels. However, since

Montana generates 63.8 per cent of its electricity using coal, which contributes 62 per cent of

the State’s annual CO2 emissions, it should consider converting its waste materials into

electricity (Table 15.1). This contrasts with both Idaho and Oregon where hydroelectric power

production is the primary source of energy and only 9 and 22 per cent, respectively, of their

CO2 emissions result from electric power generation. In these states, greater CO2 emissions

can be avoided by using their ‘wastes’ materials for producing transportation fuels.

Several western states (i.e., Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming)

use coal as their primary energy source (Table 15.1) to produce electricity and do not have

large-scale agricultural or forestry operations. These states could still collect enough

‘sustainable forest biomass’ materials to produce electricity and at the same time reduce from

12.2–4.9 per cent of their states CO2 emissions (Figure 15.4). If these states (except Utah)

converted their ‘high fire risk biomass’ materials to bio-methanol, their ability to reduce CO2

emissions during electricity generation would be considerably higher. This would be a

onetime reduction in emissions if all this ‘high fire risk biomass’ were converted. Under this

onetime scenario, the possible CO2 emissions avoided varies from 18.5 per cent in Wyoming,

to 69.5 per cent in Arizona, 67.6 per cent in Colorado, and 85.6 per cent in New Mexico.

21

These states would benefit from substituting bioenergy for their electricity production

whenever possible so the potential to reduce their CO2 emissions during energy production

could be realized.

Four states are worth mentioning because of the tremendous potential to reduce

their CO2 emissions by converting their ‘sustainable forest biomass’ or their ‘high fire risk

biomass’ into a substitute transportation fuel or by generating electricity -- using bio-methanol

as the hydrogen source for fuel cells. Three of the states (Idaho, Oregon and Washington) use

hydropower as their primary source for producing electricity while the fourth state (Montana)

primarily uses coal to generate electricity. All four of these states have well developed

agricultural and forestry industries and have a significant portion of state lands in forests.

These four states are ideal candidates for producing biofuels and have the potential to

significantly reduce CO2 emissions within their own state boundaries as well as to market their

biofuels to other states.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the funding and incentives for producing biofuels in the U.S. is going towards the

development of ethanol and biodiesel from agricultural crops, residues and grasses. This

technology is also focusing on building larger-scale commercial facilities capable of producing

380 million liters per year from one plant (e.g., Coskata 2008). There is only minimal

discussion of the use of methanol to produce bioenergy, and the inclusion of forest materials in

the mix of biomasses to produce these biofuels (Vogt et al. 2008). This contrasts with China,

which is leading in the use of methanol as an alternative transportation fuel (though made from

22

coal) and was already blending about 3.0 109 liters of methanol with gasoline in 2007. Bus

fleets and taxis in China are already running on blends ranging from 85 to 100 per cent

methanol (BBJ 2008).

Our assessment suggests that alternative approaches should be pursued to produce

energy. Biomass sources of all types are ideally suited to provide the fuel to power both motor

vehicles, and the newly emerging small appliances that are powered by methanol-fuel cells.

Electricity in remote areas or where the supply of electricity is not consistent could be provided

by the conversion of locally available biomass to methanol. Using biomass materials to

produce methanol is an economically feasible and realistic option to consider adopting when

mobile integrated technology converts biomass supplies at its source. This idea is similar to

the vision recently articulated by the Boeing Company for the need to move away from a

single, large repository of biofuel feedstock for supplying airlines to using a distributed

network of multiple feedstocks that are appropriate for each region’s geography and climate

instead (Trimble 2007). This is an option that needs to be pursued in those locations where

biomass supplies are high and can be sustainably collected. An added benefit of producing

methanol from wood biomass and using it as a transportation fuel is its ability to lower CO2

emissions at a higher level when compared to some of the other biofuels produced today

(Schindler et al. 2006).

Biofuels from forest materials is especially relevant for western states to pursue

because of the greater conversion efficiency compared to fermentation-based cellulosic

biomass conversions (Upadhye 2006). Because of the high supply of the three types of

23

biomasses available in the western states, these states can use these resources to produce

substitute motor vehicle fuels or to produce bio-methanol to generate electricity from fuel cells.

An ideal attribute of bio-methanol is its potential for substituting for motor vehicle fuels or for

fossil fuels used in fuel cells to generate electricity. In addition, these states can dramatically

reduce the CO2 emissions that would have resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels within

their boundaries. In addition, they have the ability to market their surplus biofuels to states

with lower quantities of biomass, but who need to reduce their CO2 emissions. If well-

designed and environmentally friendly technologies are used to convert biomass, biofuel

production could link solutions for environmental problems such as global climate change with

energy production while potentially promoting rural economic development.

The analyses presented in this chapter were conducted at the state level but it is at

the local level where the potential for biofuels will be reached. Many small- and medium-sized

communities in these western states could benefit from the jobs and revenue generated by a

local bio-methanol-processing facility. Another added benefit from producing biofuels would

be the creation of jobs in rural areas that are generally higher paying than many service jobs

found in urban areas. Many of these rural areas in the western states need sustainable

development activities to revitalize them. Biofuel production, therefore, provides an

opportunity to revitalize rural areas in these states. As an example of the potential impact,

consider that much of the money that changes hands in the sale of gasoline today is directed to

the gasoline supplier to defray crude oil prices, and for refining and delivery costs, so this

money will generally not even remain in the community. If, however, the gasoline is replaced

with locally produced bio-methanol fuel, the associated costs for transportation and distribution

24

are greatly reduced. Additionally, not only would more biofuel generated money stay in the

community, but the fuel price would be much more stable and not be subject to the vagaries of

geopolitics or supply issues halfway around the world.

REFERENCES

Alanne, K. and Saari, A. (2006) ‘Distributed energy generation and sustainable development’,

Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 10: 539-58.

Azar, C. and Rodhe, H. (1997) ‘Targets for stabilization of atmospheric CO2’, Science, 276:

1818-9.

Best, C. and Wayburn, L.A. (2001) America’s Private Forests: status and stewardship.

Washington: Island Press.

BBJ (2008) ‘Energy: China leads world in methanol fuel blending’, 31 January, Online.

Available HTTP:

<http://www.bbj.hu/main/news_35709_energy:+china+leads+world+in+methanol+fuel

+blending.html> (accessed 12 February 2008).

California Energy Commission (2005) Biomass in California: challenges, opportunities, and

potentials for sustainable management and development. PIER Collaborative Report

Contract 500-01-016, Sacramento, Online. Available HTTP:

<http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-160/CEC-500-2005-

160.PDF> (accessed 14 March 2008).

Coskata (2008) ‘GM and Coskata partner in syngas-to-ethanol technology’,

GreenCarCongress, 13 January, Online. Available HTTP:

25

<www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/gm-and-coskata.html> (accessed 14 March

2008).

de Oliveira, M.E.D., Vaughan, B.E. and Rykiel, E.J. (2005) ‘Ethanol as fuels: energy, carbon

dioxide balances, and ecological footprint’, Bioscience, 55: 593-602.

Demirbas, A. (2001) ‘Biomass resource facilities and biomass conversion processing for fuels

and chemicals’, Energy Conversion and Management 42:1357-78.

Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2006) ‘Prime supplier sales volume’, Online.

Available HTTP:

<http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_prim_a_EPM0_P00_Mgalpd_a.htm>

(accessed 14 March 2008).

__ (2007) ‘State electricity profiles 2005 edition, DOE/EIA-0348, Online. Available HTTP:

<http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/electricity/stateprofiles/05st_profiles/062905.pdf>

(accessed 14 March 2008).

Ekbom, T., Lindblom, M., Berglin, N. and Ahlvik, P. (2003) ‘Cost-competitive, efficient bio-

methanol production from biomass via black liquor gasification’, Project Report, Black

liquor gasification with motor fuels production – BLGMF, Online. Available HTTP:

<http://www.nykomb.se/pdf/BlackLiquorMeOH.pdf> (accessed 14 March 2008).

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1998) FAO Yearbook of

Forest Products 1996, Table 4, Production, trade and consumption of forest products,

1996, Rome, Online. Available HTTP:

<www.fao.org/docrep/W9950E/w9950e24.htm> (accessed 14 March 2008).

26

__ (2006) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: progress towards sustainable forest

management, FAO Forestry Paper No. 147, Rome, Online. Available HTTP:

<http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/fra2005/en> (accessed 14 March 2008).

Farrell, A.E., Plevin, R.J., Turner, B.T., Jones, A.D., O'Hare, M. and Kammen, D.M. (2006)

‘Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals’, Science, 311: 506-8.

Grillo J. (2007) ‘Mexico moves to control tortilla prices’, The Seattle Times, 19 January, A12.

Gordon, J.C. (1994) ‘From vision to policy: a role for foresters’, Journal of Forestry, 92 (7):

16-19.

Gustavsson, L. and Svenningsson, P. (1996) ‘Substituting fossil fuels with biomass’, Energy

Conversion and Management, 37: 1211-6.

Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Tiffany, D. (2006) ‘Environmental, economic,

and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels’, Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103: 11206-10.

Hopkins A. (2007) ‘US survey ties biofuels to high food cost, hunger’, Planet Ark, 30 October,

Online. Available HTTP:

<http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/45067/story.htm> (accessed 14

March 2008).

Idatech (2003) web-site, Online. Available HTTP: <www.idatech.com> (accessed 30 June

2003).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2003) ‘IPCC meeting on current

scientific understanding of the processes affecting terrestrial carbon stocks and human

influences upon them’, 21-23 July, Geneva, Online. Available HTTP:

27

<http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/ipcc-meeting-2003-07.pdf> (accessed 14

March 2008).

Jagadish, K.S. (2003) ‘Bioenergy for India: prospects, problems and tasks’, Energy for

Sustainable Development, 7: 28-34.

Jefferson, M. (2006) ‘Sustainable energy development: performance and prospects’,

Renewable Energy, 31: 571-82.

Lewandowski, I. and Schmidt, U. (2006) ‘Nitrogen, energy and land use efficiencies of

miscanthus, reed canary grass and triticale as determined by the boundary line

approach’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 112: 335-46.

Milbrandt, A. (2005) A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource

Availability in the United States. NREL/TP-560-39181, National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO. Online. Available HTTP:

<http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39181.pdf> (accessed 20 November 2007).

Nakagawa, H., Harada, T., Ichinose, T., Takeno, K., Matsumoto, S., Kobayashi, M. and Sakai

M. (2007) ‘Biomethanol production and CO2 emission reduction from forage grasses,

trees, and crop residues’, Japanese Agricultural Research Quarterly, 41: 173-80.

Nilsson, S. and Schopfhauser, W. (1995) ‘The carbon-sequestration potential of a global

afforestation program’, Climatic Change, 30: 267-93.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) (1995) ‘Methanol from biomass’, NREL/SP-

420-5570-Rev.2, DE93010018, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO,

Online. Available HTTP: <www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/5570r2.pdf> (accessed 6

March 2008).

28

Oasmaa, A., Kuoppala, E., Gust, S., and Solantausta, Y. (2003) ‘Fast pyrolysis of forestry

residue. 1. Effect of extractives on phase separation of pyrolysis liquids’, Energy &

Fuels 17: 1-12.

Ohlström, M., Makinen, T., Laurikko, J. and Pipatti, R. (2001) ‘New concepts for biofuels in

transportation: biomass-based methanol production and reduced emissions in advanced

vehicles’, VTT Energy. VTT Research Notes 2074, Online. Available HTTP:

<www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2001/T2074.pdf> (accessed 14 March 2008).

Oregon (2007) ‘Oregon’s biomass energy resources’, Online. Available HTTP:

<www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/biomass/resource.shtml> (accessed 14 March

2008).

Parrish, D.J. and Fike, J.H. (2005) ‘The biology and agronomy of switchgrass for biofuels’,

Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 24: 423-59.

Patzek, T.W. (2004) ‘Thermodynamics of the corn-ethanol biofuel cycle’, Critical Reviews in

Plant Sciences, 23: 519-67.

Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D. and Seidel, R. (2005) ‘Response from

Pimentel and colleagues’, Bioscience, 55: 820-1.

Pimentel, D. and Patzek, T.W. (2005) ‘Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood;

biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower’, Natural Resources Research, 14:

65-76.

Ragauskas, A.J., Williams, C.K., Davison, B.H., Britovsek, G., Cairney, J., Eckert, C.A. et al.

(2006) ‘The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials’, Science, 311: 484-9.

Reed, T.B. and Lerner, R.M. (1973) ‘Methanol: A versatile fuel for immediate use’, Science,

182: 1299-1304.

29

Richards, K.R., Sampson, R.N. and Brown, N. (2006) Agricultural & Forestlands: U.S. carbon

policy strategies, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington.

Rosenthal, E. (2007) ‘Once a dream fuel, palm oil may be an eco-nightmare’, The New York

Times, 31 January, Online. Available HTTP:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/business/worldbusiness/31biofuel.html?_r=1&or

ef=slogin> (accessed 14 March 2008).

Sayer, J. and Campbell, B. (2003) The Science of Sustainable Development: local livelihoods

and the global environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schindler, J., Wurster, R., Zerta, M., Blandow, V. and Zittel, W. (2006) Where will the Energy

for Hydrogen Production Come From? – status and alternatives. European Hydrogen

Association, Online. Available HTTP:

<http://www.hyweb.de/Wissen/docs2007/EHA_WhereWillH2ComeFrom_2007.pdf>

(accessed 14 March 2008).

Shapouri, S.H., Duffield, J.A. and Wang, M. (2002) ‘The energy balance of corn ethanol: an

update’, US Department of Agriculture, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses,

Agricultural Economics, Washington, D.C., Report No. 813, 14 p.

__ (2003) ‘The energy balance of corn ethanol revisited’, Transactions of the ASAE, 46: 959-

68.

Sticklen, M. (2006) ‘Plant genetic engineering to improve biomass characteristics for biofuels’,

Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 17: 315-9.

Stokstad, E. (2005) ‘Learning to adapt’, Science, 309: 688-90.

Trimble, S. (2007) ‘Boeing expands biofuel strategy’, Air Transport Intelligence News, 18

December, Washington, D.C.

30

Upadhye, R. (2006) ‘Energy From biomass’, in: K.A. Vogt, J.M. Honea, D.J. Vogt, R.L.

Edmonds, T. Patel-Weynand, R. Sigurdardottir and M.G. Andreu (eds.). Forests and

Society: sustainability and life cycles of forests in human landscapes. Wallingford, UK:

CABI International, pp. 280-2.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (1990) Assessment of Costs and Benefits of Flexible and

Alternative Fuel Use in the U.S. Transportation Sector, report five: costs of methanol

production from biomass. Government Printing Office. DOE/PE-0097P. Washington

DC.

__ (2001) U.S.A. carbon emissions by state (including the District of Columbia) for 1960-2001.

Available HTTP:

<http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/emis_mon/stateemis/percapbystate.csv> (accessed 23

March 2008).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2004) ‘Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas

emissions and sinks: 1990-2002’, EPA 430-R-04-003, Online. Available HTTP:

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsG

HGEmissions.html> (accessed 14 March 2008).

USDA Forest Service (2003) A Strategic Assessment of Forest Biomass and Fuel Reduction

Treatments in Western States, in partnership with Western Forestry Leadership

Coalition, Online. Available HTTP: <www.fs.fed.us/research/pdf/Western_final.pdf>

(accessed 14 March 2008).

Varun, and Singal, S.K. (2007) ‘Review of augmentation of energy needs using renewable

energy sources in India’, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11: 1607-15.

31

Vogt, K.A., Andreu, M.G., Vogt, D.J., Sigurdardottir, R., Edmonds, R.L., Schiess, P. and

Hodgson, K. (2005) ‘Societal values and economic return added for forests owners by

linking forests to bioenergy production’, Journal of Forestry, 103 (1): 21-27.

Vogt, K.A., Vogt, D.J., Upadhye, R., Edlund, D., Edmonds, R.L., Patel-Weynand, T. et al.

(2008) ‘Bio-methanol: how energy choices in the western United States can help

mitigate global climate change’, Renewable Energy (in press).

Western Governors’ Association (2006) Biomass Task Force Report, Denver, Online.

Available HTTP: <http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/Biomass-

summary.pdf> (accessed 14 March 2008).

Washington State University (WSU) (2005) Biomass Inventory and Bioenergy Assessment. an

evaluation of organic material resources for bioenergy production in Washington state,

publication no. 05-07-047, Pullman, WA.

Wu, M., Wu, Y. and Wang, M. (2006) ‘Energy and emission benefits of alternative

transportation liquid fuels derived from switchgrass: a fuel life cycle assessment’,

Biotechnology Progress, 22: 1012-24.

32

Table 15.1. Electricity and carbon emissions profiles for 11 western U.S. states

Source: EIA (2007).

State State’s primary energy source for electricity generation in

2005

Electricity generated using primary energy source / total

electricity consumed

(%)

Total carbon emitted from

electricity generation

(Mg C yr-1)

Total carbon emitted from

electricity generation / total

state carbon emissions

(%)

Arizona Coal 39.6 14,016,648 59

California Gas 46.7 14,923,581 15

Colorado Coal 71.7 11,146,561 37

Idaho Hydroelectric 78.9 364,083 9

Montana Coal 63.8 5,335,426 62

Nevada Gas [coal] 46.6 [45.7] 7,083,515 59

New Mexico Coal 85.2 8,935,590 57

Oregon Hydroelectric 62.7 2,447,052 22

Utah Coal 94.2 9,801,037 58

Washington Hydroelectric 70.7 4,068,504 18

Wyoming Coal 95.1 12,399,290 73

33

Table 15.2. The amount of annual electricity generated and gasoline consumed, and the

amount of carbon emitted annually for 11 western U.S. states, 2001–5

State Net electricity generated in

state

(MWh yr-1)

Annual motor gasoline

consumption

(103 liters yr-1)

Total state carbon

emissions

(Tg C yr-1)

Total resident population

(including Armed Forces) in 2001

Arizona 101,478,654 10,263,775 23.9 5,297,684

California 200,292,817 60,910,465 100.5 34,533,050

Colorado 49,616,695 7,834,099 29.9 4,428,786

Idaho 10,842,984 2,598,517 4.2 1,321,309

Montana 27,938,778 2,484,805 8.7 905,954

Nevada 40,213,752 3,832,215 12.0 2,094,633

New Mexico 35,135,642 3,644,169 15.8 1,829,110

Oregon 49,325,002 5,961,100 11.2 3,472,629

Utah 38,165,131 4,162,850 16.8 2,279,590

Washington 101,965,850 10,860,106 22.1 5,992,760

Wyoming 45,567,307 1,278,464 17.0 493,720

Source: DOE 2001; EPA 2004; and EIA 2006, 2007.

34

Table 15A.1. Amount of dry biomass annually available from municipal landfills,

agriculture, and forests

Total annual sustainable collection of biomass

(103 Mg yr-1)

One time biomass collection

(103 Mg)

State Wastes in

municipal landfills

Wastes in agriculture

Wastes from

forests

Forest aboveground biomass (2 %

collected)

Aboveground biomass with high fire-risk in

forestlands

Arizona 526 351 209 2,509 35,830

California 38,000 4,200 26,830 24,100 113,490

Colorado 451 1,550 292 7,912 43,820

Idaho 427 1,788 5,873 14,012 72,940

Montana 500 1,560 2,641 13,312 70,220

Nevada 232 4 22 216 450

New Mexico 191 168 245 2,809 29,210

Oregon 1,653 1,500 12,700 29,561 82,550

Utah 228 88 150 2,827 1,450

Washington 3,472 2,412 8,104 21,032 57,150

Wyoming 59 106 317 3,591 6,800

Source: Milbrandt 2005; WSU 2005; Western Governors’ Association 2006; and Oregon

2007.

35

Table 15A.2. Potential annual gasoline consumption (%) that could be replaced by bio-

methanol produced from a diversity of biomass sources in 11 western states

Proportion of total gasoline consumption annually substituted with bio-methanol by state

Proportion of total gasoline use annually substituted with bio-methanol from a one

time collection by state

State

Bio-methanol

from municipal

wastes

Bio-methanol

from agricultural

wastes

Bio-methanol

from forest wastes

Bio-methanol

from 2% of forest

biomass

Bio-methanol from forests with high fire

risk (5–23 cm diameter)

Arizona 3.3 0.6 1.3 15.6 233.3

California 39.9 4.3 28.2 25.3 119.2

Colorado 3.7 3.2 2.4 64.6 357.8

Idaho 10.5 42.1 144.6 345.0 1795.7

Montana 12.9 23.2 68.0 342.7 1807.9

Nevada 3.9 < 1.0 0.4 3.6 7.5

New Mexico 3.3 0.7 4.3 49.3 512.8

Oregon 17.7 9.9 136.3 317.3 885.9

Utah 3.5 0.3 2.3 43.4 22.3

Washington 20.5 11.6 47.7 123.9 336.7

Wyoming 3.0 1.3 15.9 179.7 340.3

36

Table 15A.3. Potential annual electricity consumed (%) that could be generated from fuel

cells using bio-methanol produced from a diversity of sustainably collected biomass sources

in 11 western states

Proportion of total electricity generated annually using

bio-methanol-fuel cells by state

Proportion of total electricity generated annually from a one time collection by

state

State

Bio-methanol

from municipal

wastes

Bio-methanol

from agricultural

wastes

Bio-methanol

from forest wastes

Bio-methanol

from 2% of forest

biomass

Bio-methanol from forests with high fire

risk (5–23 cm diameter)

Arizona 0.5 < 0.1 0.2 2.4 33.6

California 9.7 1.0 6.9 6.2 29.0

Colorado 0.6 0.5 0.4 10.6 58.9

Idaho 1.3 5.1 17.5 41.7 217.0

Montana 2.4 4.4 12.7 64.2 338.6

Nevada 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.4 0.9

New Mexico 0.6 0.1 0.8 8.9 92.0

Oregon 2.3 1.3 17.8 41.4 115.6

Utah 0.6 < 0.1 0.4 7.4 3.8

Washington 2.7 1.5 6.3 16.4 44.5

Wyoming 0.3 0.1 1.5 16.5 31.3

37

0102030405060708090

100Su

stai

nabl

e A

nnua

l B

iom

ass

Ava

ilabi

lity

(Mill

ion

Mg

yr-1)

Arizona

California

Colorado

IdahoMontana

Nevada

New Mexico

Oregon

UtahWashington

Wyoming

MSW Wastes Agriculture Wastes Forest Wastes Sustainable Forest Biomass

Figure 15.1. Annual ‘wastes’ (municipal landfills, forests, agriculture) and from ‘sustainable forest biomass’. See Appendix Table 15.1 for biomass data by type and state, and from forest ‘high fire risk biomass’ (5–23 cm diameter material).

38

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Arizona

California

Colorado

IdahoMontana

Nevada

New Mexico

Oregon

UtahWashington

Wyoming

Ann

ual S

tate

Gas

olin

e C

onsu

mpt

ion

&Eq

uiva

lent

Vol

umes

of B

io-m

etha

nol

from

Bio

mas

s (B

illio

n lit

ers

yr -1)

Annual State Gasoline Consumption Biomass Wastes Bio-methanolSustainable Forest Biomass Bio-methanol High Fire Risk Bio-methanol

Figure 15.2. Comparison of the annual gasoline consumed (in billion liters yr-1) in each state and the amount of bio-methanol (in billion liters yr-1) that could be used as a gasoline substitute in each state annually. Bio-methanol is produced from ’wastes’ (municipal, agriculture, forests), ‘sustainable forest biomass’ and from ‘high fire risk biomass’ from forests.

39

0

50

100

150

200

Arizona

California

Colorado

IdahoMontana

Nevada

New Mexico

Oregon

UtahWashington

Wyoming

Stat

e El

ectr

icity

Gen

erat

ion

&

Elec

tric

ity P

rodu

ctio

n fr

om B

iom

ass

(TW

h yr

-1)

Net Electricity Generated by State, 2005Biomass Wastes Bio-methanol/Fuel CellsSustainable Forest Biomass Bio-methanol/Fuel CellsHigh Fire Risk Bio-methanol/Fuel Cells

Figure 15.3. Electric generation annually for each of the 11 western states and the amount of electricity that potentially could be generated from the conversion of the different biomass types into bio-methanol for power generation using fuel cells.

40

0

50

100

150

200

Arizona

California

Colorado

IdahoMontana

Nevada

New Mexico

Oregon

UtahWashington

Wyoming

Car

bon

Emis

sion

s A

void

ed w

ithB

io-m

etha

nol S

ubst

itutio

n(%

)

E-Biomass Wastes E-Sustainable Forest Biomass E-High Fire RiskMF-Biomass Wastes MF-Sustainable Forest Biomass MF-High Fire Risk

Figure 15.4. The potential percent of total state carbon emissions that could be avoided by substituting bio-methanol for motor vehicle fuels (MF) or by substituting electricity produced from fuel cells for electricity derived from fossil fuels (E) in each of the 11 western states. Biomass wastes = waste biomasses from agriculture, forests and municipal wastes; sustainable forest biomass = 2 per cent of the total live aboveground forest biomass; high fire risk = small diameter (5-23 cm) forest materials considered to increase the fire risk of forests. [NOTE: Idaho E-High Fire Risk = 800.6 percent and MF-High Fire Risk = 727.8 percent; Montana E-High Fire Risk = 374 percent and MF-High Fire Risk = 340 percent; Oregon E-High Fire Risk = 340.5 percent and MF-High Fire Risk = 309.5 percent]